In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 47711 comments on the Spiked story from Apr 11, 2012, titled In America, atheists are still in the closet. In it, Spiked reports that:

So do many other interest and identity groups. Complaint is our political lingua franca: it's what Occupiers, Tea Partiers, Wall Street titans, religious and irreligious people share.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Spiked.

SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

#46615 Jan 21, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
President Obama will end the oath with
"so help me God" illustrating the influence of Christianity on America in 2013
Because president Obama of all presidents is going to pander to the demands of the religious right.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#46616 Jan 21, 2013
Right as in wrong.
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Because president Obama of all presidents is going to pander to the demands of the religious right.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46617 Jan 21, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Numerous times in the past you have been told that Britain is a Constitutional monarchy
Monarchy.

PS:

A Constitutional monarchy is:

A) a monarchy
B) a kumquat
C) a long haired cat
D) a monarchy

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46618 Jan 21, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Numerous times in the past you have been told that Britain is a Constitutional monarchy which you claim is false because we do not have one physical Constitution.
Does the United KING_dom have a constitution, yes or no?

PS: Funny no matter how many times I invite you to quote me, you cannot ever seem to find the quote you need.

And you make one up.

Yes or no: Does the United KING_dom have a Constitution, yes or no?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46619 Jan 21, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
The only person making up stuff is you - excuses - rather than dealing with the substance of my posts.
In actual fact: my posts are replete qith quotes.

I would say "exact quotes"- because you don't seem to understand what a quote means, and you think that a quote means that you got most of the words in there right.

All quotes- actually- are verbatim.

And that is why when you refer to something you think I mostly said... you don't use them.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46620 Jan 21, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
SupaAFC: two politics degrees.
SuperFAG = full of cr@p.

PS: You continue to insist the UK isn't a monarchy. Your "degrees" should be put to better use: pull them from the frames and use them to wipe your azz.

PS: Do let me know what you think a "politics degree" is supposed to be.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46621 Jan 21, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Your best response has simply been that you do not care about Britain having a Parliament.
Actually, I have given you around twenty responses.

Maybe you can pick on that you like.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46622 Jan 21, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Case in point: Macmillan being a democratically-elected MP which made a mockery of your claim that he was an unelected Prime Minister.
Of course, I never ever said that Macmillan was not democratically elected as an MP.

Gosh, you cannot put two sentences together without lying.

You asked for an example of PM who was elected BY HIS PARTY to be *nominated* as PM which- as I pointed out to you- the Queen could consider and then APPOINT the PM to that office... if she felt like it.

You insisted that PMs were all elected and that the monarch HAD to make the "appointment".

I had to inform you that he was NOT elected by his party, i.e., I stuck my foot up your azz yet again.

That indeed the Queen asked for advice on who should be appointed PM and that there was NO election.

And I informed you- you who claims to hold two..."political" degrees... at which point you said er um hmm err... ummm... give me TWO examples...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH

Review:

Macmillan was not elected by his party to be nominated for PM.

Review:
The monarch is not compelled to take any nomination or advice given in her APPOINTMENT of that office.

PS: You still haven't proved the name of the university and the year you got these "political degrees".

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46623 Jan 21, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
You also flat-out ran away from defining democracy despite
I also refused to give you my recipe for slow crock bread pudding.

My standard of proof, SuperFAG, is that the UK ins a MONARCHY.

I do not have to prove (or disprove) that the UK is not
A) a dictatorship
B) a communist state
C) a Fascist state
D) an oligarchy
E) a kumquat
F) a democracy

I have to prove that it is a monarchy.

Which I did months ago.

Tootles...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46624 Jan 21, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
de∑moc∑ra∑cy
/di&#712;mškr&#601;s &#275;/
Noun
A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
A state governed in such a way.
Don't care.

PS: Here's where you got the defintion:

http://www.ecovisionquest.com/defdemocracy.ht...

I invited everyone to click on the link and to find that the US was given as example of a democracy... and the UK... not.

PPS: The United KING_dom is a monarchy.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46625 Jan 21, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
If those appointed members actually did anything of substance that affects our political system. Unfortunately for you, they don't.
You are a liar.

We've establish that, of course.

If the appointed members of the UK Parliament were unable to do anything of substance, then there would not be a House of Lords.

The is a House of Lords.

PS: still waiting for the name of that universe that gave you these "political degrees".

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46626 Jan 21, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<
Right. So while we must provide thorough research and evidence for our arguments, you are at liberties to provide nothing for yours other than assertions, ad homs and the odd dictionary definition
Sometimes twelve definitions in a row, taking them in order as they appear one after the next complete with links and EXACT quotes.

Is the United KING_dom a monarchy...YES OR NO?

How many definitions do you need?

Have you EVER found a link (ONE) that refute the FACT that the United KING_dom is a monarchy?

No... you have not...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46627 Jan 21, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
The Commons are democractically elected.
mon∑ar∑chy
[mon-er-kee] noun, plural mon∑ar∑chies.
1. a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch. Compare absolute monarchy, limited monarchy.
2. supreme power or sovereignty held by a single person.

Synonyms
1. See kingdom.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Sweden

#46628 Jan 21, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor Meatball, never the quote he needs, he is stuck creating them yet again...
douche still insists that the sweden and britain are non democratic and that i create quotes

do not need to quote you bsfoot every time i tell you that sweden is a democracy and you say kingdom can't be democracies then you are telling me that sweden is non democratic

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Sweden

#46629 Jan 21, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I also refused to give you my recipe for slow crock bread pudding.
My standard of proof, SuperFAG, is that the UK ins a MONARCHY.
I do not have to prove (or disprove) that the UK is not
A) a dictatorship
B) a communist state
C) a Fascist state
D) an oligarchy
E) a kumquat
F) a democracy
I have to prove that it is a monarchy.
Which I did months ago.
Tootles...
and kingdoms can be democracies

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46630 Jan 21, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
douche still insists that the sweden and britain are non democratic and that i create quotes
~stomp stomp stomp~

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46631 Jan 21, 2013
Mikko wrote:
do not need to quote you bsfoot
I don't care if you ever quote me, Meatball.

Just stop calling it a quote.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46632 Jan 21, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
and kingdoms can be democracies
Nope.

In a democracy, everyone has equal access to power. If you are born into the "office" of monarch- you are delegated as HEAD OF STATE- and no one else has this access, than you do not live in a democracy.

That is what is meant by NOMINAL head of state, which I have posted many dozens of times.

If the USA declared that you were the head of state, the king, and that 'office' would be passed down from you to your son (or daughter) forever, if the only thing you did (as king) was to throw out the first ball of the first game of the baseball season: the USA would not be a democracy any more.

No matter how many times you spam the board.

PS: the monarch in the UK nominates the PM, sings off on all new laws, declares wars, and has the power, no matter how hard SuperFAG & et al. stomp their feet: to dismiss the elected government.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46633 Jan 21, 2013
Mikko wrote:
you say kingdom can't be democracies then you are telling me that sweden is non democratic
Stop trying to pass off things that "I" say.

Especially: When you lie about it.

Your English isn't very good, and you don't speak for yourself and you try to speak for me.

And you are out of your league.

The KINGDOM of Sweden is a *monarchy*.

North Korea has elections. Is North Korea a democracy, yes or no?

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#46634 Jan 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Stalin was an atheist.
Ö
And you have a real problem with being told you are wrong.
Ok then why did he reinstate the church? Why did he reinstate theological schools?, why did he reinstate the church patriarch

Really does not sound like the work of an atheist to me

Or do you want to give the excuse that he got a conscience?

The problem I have is with being told lies
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Has absolutely nothing with your overt racism, Skanque, putting aside *I* never uttered anything racially offensive to Packy,Ö
, eh, Skanque?
When you blurted out that my 'wife' must have ran off with a black man... it clearly said something about something about you.
Jeesus fooking christ on a crutch you drippydick cuckold moron, you use racially abusive wording to claim you never said anything racially abusive. You are further gone that I thought, there is no hope for you recovering you sanity

Honey, you want to call me names then please do the decent thing and accept the comeback you ignorant moron. You began verbally abusing me the moment you realised you could not get your won way, I was not the first you verbally abused and no doubt I will not be the last, Straa comes to mind here.

Like any good gold war, I retaliates, you upped the anty and I retaliated again until I found two points that you donít like. And since then all you have done is whine that the exact methods you use hurt when pointed back at yourself.

If you canít reap what you sow then donít sow it.

Honey, that was not blurting, that was cool, collected retaliation and it certainly seems to have shaken you from you mind numbing reverie.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone here has seen you use the term "t\/\/at".
You.
You brought this term to this forum.
Yup, It was the first time that a response from me actually hurt you, woke you up to take notice. Oh you poor dear smelly butt, when you call people names then please donít be surprised if the recipient responds in kind.

That was after some many month after you began verbally abusing me, you do it so often I really donít think you know you are doing it in exactly the same way you donít feel you are racially abusing Straa

If you canít reap what you sow then donít sow it.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sure the drippydick is an image and a taste that you hold dear.
Ö
I guess that is the only reason the ex put up[ with you for so long, eh?
I would not recommend you company to just anyone, but after your comment it is easy to see why the incidence of STIís is rising

Honey, I have told you before but you contine to repeat your lies, I donít have an ex but of coure you keep repeating an wondering why I respond in kind, you are so ignorant.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
eh, no, they haven't.
Ö
You, indeed, lowered the bar.
Yes they have. I know of 3, one was even removed as I was replying to it, that was quite funny.

As far as I am aware no posts of mine have been removed for around 2 years, I did once have one removed on a different thread. However certainly no posts have been removed when I states that your wife had run off with a black man, whatís cuckold life like eh drippydick.

Actually I donít think it offensive, although I think itís hilarious that you should get so hot under the collar about it. What N word, come in you must be used to spouting it out, after all you spew the P word often enough. Nope black is not part of the vocabulary deemed to offend except by those who think black is offensive.

What C word, I canít say I remember using the C word and I am sure that if I had the post would be removed, but I havenít so they havenítÖ

Nope you lowered the bar when began verbally abusing me and dropped it to the floor when you started verbally abusing Straa

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr waaasssuuup 238,901
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 4 hr DebraE 7,181
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 5 hr Richardfs 81
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 14 hr karl44 7,431
why Atheists believe in incest,pedophilia and b... 15 hr thetruth 29
News .com | What hope is there without God? Wed Kaitlin the Wolf ... 26
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Wed thetruth 2,171
More from around the web